Comments Posted By mannning
Displaying 451 To 460 Of 475 Comments


My mistake, it was leo that posted the critique, not Joe H.

Comment Posted By mannning On 8.07.2007 @ 21:39

Joe H. You preempted my next post very nicely. It is obvious that the aftermath of an attack on Iran must be thought through. Your idea that I am selling such a war is interesting. I wonder where you got that? I deal in situations, capabilities, and probable directions based on the positions of our and their leaders, and not selling a war. That is ridiculous. Both Bush and Cheney have stated clearly and definitively, for instance, that we will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapon capability.

The first reaction I have is that Iranian oil will be shut off for some time. (We are headed to a 100 dollar per barrel of oil now regardless.) This will make our huge shale oil deposits viable economically, so that source will be more rapidly exploited. It will also push our technologists to cut our need for oil by a significant half within 5 to 10 years. Our known oil reserves will be further exploited as well given this impetus. It turns out that the US does not buy oil from Iran in any event. The price of oil will undoubtedly stabilize within 4 to 6 months after the end of the battles, perhaps a year at the outside, to a more reasonable level as Iran oil comes back on line, and we permit it to flow.

The situation in Iran will be chaotic at best. They are currently struggling with an extremely low economy, and with their oil revenues totally cut off, there will be stagnation. Iran does not have refinery capability, so they will be using primitive means of transport rather quickly, and they will not be able to mount a major mobile battle.

While many Iranians will rally to the nation, it is perhaps quite overdone that they will be steadfast to the Mullahs in the face of no food, no gasoline and auto use, and no electrical power, all because of their state policies of seeking nuclear weapons. A welcome result might well be the drying up of funds for terrorist operations and support of Hamas and Hisbollah.

Once we have eliminated as much of the nuclear threat as we can find, and neutralized the Iranians ability to fight in sustained combat, we would most likely cease fire. We would not try to take Iran, nor would we try to help reconstruct it.
So there they would be in the sand, sans army, sans nuclear weapons, sans gasoline, sans revenue, and hopefully, sans Mullahs sooner or later.

Once the gasoline and diesel fuel has run out or been destroyed, their army becomes strictly foot soldiers in a vast sandpile, up against a fully mechanized
and well-supplied army, and a dominant air force. I would not like to bet on their chances.

Nuclear proliferation is the issue here. The nightmare of not only Pakistan and North Korea, but also Iran having nuclear weapons and the means for their delivery must be prevented or neutralized, or we will have a mega disaster in the West sooner or later. I will take their President's words to be their truth. They intend to destroy Israel and the US. This is the gauntlet they have laid down.

It is not pleasant to contemplate our role here in the US, but with Europe a puny
partner from both force capability and willingness to step up to the problem aspects, there is no one else that can do the deeds necessary. The EU could have generated the military power needed, but they have not, and are now unwilling to do so. Oh, they are very willing to take moral positions that such should not happen. We had our appeasers and our jellyfish too in the US--and still have, for that matter.

The alternatives are few: there has been over four years of diplomacy; there is a round of sanctions now, and we all know how well those work; and there is only gamesmanship from Iran to keep the ball in the air as long as possible. Their time is running out.

Sadly, the world comes to opinions based on poor reading of the facts and careful reading of the propaganda spewing from the other side. But such actions as are contemplated must be carried out if catastrophe is to be avoided, no matter what world opinion comes to. This is not a voting situation, and poor world opinion not only comes to those with power to act, but also to those who see the need to act, and who do in fact act on behalf of the rest of the people. That is the way it is.
We will simply have to live with it.

The US has been fighting in Iraq with far too few troops for a long time, and they have been limited in how they could be used until lately. They have not been used to smother, cover, seize and hold, but to foray and raid in predictable ways. Not good. Today it appears to be going better, but still without sufficient troops. That may be corrected in the near term.

The US could, should it want to, raise an armed force of 10 to 15 million men and put many of them in the Middle East for the next 5 or 10 years, together with the combat weapons and vehicles they would need. Not that I am recommending it, but simply to illustrate what we are capable of doing. Yes, and at a great cost. Still, it would not seriously hurt our stupendously large economy.

Politically, however, it seems that the will to win, the willingness to go the extra distance, and to stay the course, or whatever aphorism you want, has been sapped from many of our people. Something has gone out of the spirit we have had since our founding. Perhaps it is the soft life we have become used to, or the guns and butter capability we have, or perhaps it is the siren call of pacifism, or even the growth of cowardliness and frustration in some of our people, or maybe all of these things, I do not know. Americans are impatient for results, and they petulantly rebel if they don't see results real soon. So the short span of support for war may well do us in again. We will have to live with that too, and even plan for it.

Just maybe, however, all it takes in one swift kick in the butt to our collective rears to get us going as we have done in the past. Apparently, OBL knows this well about us, as he has substantially left the US itself alone since 9/11.

Don't wake the tiger.

Comment Posted By mannning On 8.07.2007 @ 21:31

There is one factor that few have seemed to given any weight to so far. That is the Iranian situation. I am convinced that we are very serious about preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons. I am also convinced that we will attack Iran before the end of Spring, 2008, if diplomacy and sanctions, or internal strife do not cause the Iranians to cave in to UN demands. The most probable attack will be by air, not a ground invasion, in the first instance.

In this attack, we will have to take out many sites, including communications, command and control, air defense, and airfields and aircraft, before we can fully exploit our heavy lift B-1, B-2 and B-52 assets over Iran. There will most likely be significant collateral damage to other Iranian assets as well, simply because they have located much of their nuclear and defensive capabilities near non-military installations, homes, and businesses.

Iran will declare war in this event, I am virtually certain, and will activate their military and their sleeper cells to do damage to us, all around the globe. I am sure that they will move into Iraq openly with their army as well as more covertly with heavy support to the insurgents. Syria may enter the fray as well, causing us to defend ourselves on two fronts.

My point here is that we cannot draw down our forces in Iraq if we are going to attack Iran next year. I believe that the urgency that many in congress see in crippling the Iraqi effort is really directed at the administration to stop it from attacking Iran, and perhaps massively widening the Mid East war. In fact, we should seriously augment our forces in Iraq if the plan is to hit Iran, as I suspect we will.

So, in my opinion, the crux of the situation lies in the events in Iran that accept or deny the UN resolutions regarding cessation of their nuclear activities before 2008 is well along.

If one has a diabolical streak, one could also speculate that Bush/Chaney might half heartedly accept the draw down, begin to execute it, and then, in a surprise move, let the air forces loose on Iran. This would create a crisis in Iraq for our forces there, and would ensure that significant reinforcements would be sent in haste by airlift and sea lift to save our Iraq based troops from disaster.

Comment Posted By mannning On 7.07.2007 @ 21:08

I haven't the ghost of an idea what Jack Bauer would do. But I do have some ideas of what we should not do now, and it is along the lines of what I posted here earlier:

1. We should not abandon the Iraqi people completely by running home. Genocide is a real threat to them.
2. We should not abandon the Iraqi government that we have propped up so far.
3. We should not allow Iraq to be taken over by the Iranians and Syrians.
4. We should not allow genocide to take place between the various sects.
5. We should not let the Iraqi oil be captured by the Russians or Chinese.
6. The oil is key to the economic growth of Iraq, and since it seems that they cannot settle its sharing equitably, we should step in there and force an equitable solution, with some payback for us as well.
7. We need to protect the oil infrastructure in Iraq.
8. We need to protect the borders as well at this time.
9. We should not turn our backs on our investment in Iraq in blood and treasure at this time.

It seems obvious to me that we cannot do these things without sufficient force on the ground in Iraq, deployed so as to be available in case of serious bloodshed, and so as to protect the borders and the oil infrastructure. We would still have to be in Baghdad, and several other cities until Iraqi forces can take over. We would still have to train their various forces. We would still have to protect our own supply lines to our forces, and our own bases from attack. We would still have to run continuous recon missions of our own throughout Iraq. I am sure that there is more that needs doing as well.

If these things are valid for us to do, and I believe they are, then we currently do not have enough troop power in Iraq to accomplish all I have suggested, I think.
So rather than withdrawing troops now, it seems to me that we should be augmenting them, while rearranging their deployments inside Iraq to cover the needs suggested above, and also completing the current surge missions as well in Baghdad and surrounds. Many of us have decried the lack of forces adequate to the job since the beginning of our Iraqi adventure. Politically, it is not going to happen, but it is what I would do.

Then the Iraqi government, the various tribes, and the sects can have a relatively unfettered go at solving their governance problems, without the oil question being at issue, except against us. If we are fair with the distribution of profits, that just might buy time for them to settle themselves, before we turn control back to them.

Comment Posted By mannning On 7.07.2007 @ 00:38


My syllogism:

All Muslims swear fidelity to Islam.
Islam demands unconditional jihad against infidels.
Thus, all Muslims, to be faithful to Islam, must support jihad against the infidel.

Infidels....that is us.

Comment Posted By mannning On 5.07.2007 @ 22:05

That was your syllogism, not mine. You obviously miss the point. Any group, sect or government that has the kind of power of life and death over its adherents that Islam has over Muslims is an anathema to Christianity. That power has been demonstrated over and over, and my anecdote is merely one illustration of this power.

You need to work on your knowledge of Islam.

Comment Posted By mannning On 5.07.2007 @ 21:48

That was : Iraq, not Iran

Comment Posted By mannning On 5.07.2007 @ 15:35

Bigotry is it? I disagree. I am basing my remarks on the Koran, Haddith, and Fatwas of Islam, that have not been abrogated since the 7th century. Plus the analysis of Jihadist statements logged onto the web (Google: jihad)of which there are hundreds worldwide. It would take a fool to ignore the pure hatred of Christianity and Judaism that pours from the Islamic world daily. This cannot, in my opinion, be simply dsmissed.

As to taking on the entire Islamic world, surely one must bite off what one can chew, and not rush out to fight the entire billion or so at one time. What do you think is happening in Iran and Afghanistan? We are killing Muslims.

Comment Posted By mannning On 5.07.2007 @ 15:08

Suicide bombers are the perfect illustration of what we are up against. Hamas has ordered a number of passive Muslims, who never had any thought of fighting, to strap on a bomb and go do death to infidels. So the mass of Muslims can be corrupted into the fight against the infidel with relatively little effort by the leadership. Merely the threat of killing their families to the last man and child appears to work miracles on their aversion to war and suicide. If you think this is rare, you might take the President of Iran's statement more seriously that he has 10,000 suicide bombers ready for action. Bombast, maybe, but the US is not in the business of ignoring major threats, or are we?

Comment Posted By mannning On 5.07.2007 @ 14:51


Let us first label what we are seeing to be Islamic terrorism. Thus our enemy is Islam, including all individuals who profess to be dedicated followers of the teachings of Muhammad. That is, we must consider as enemies those who believe that jihad against the infidel is a sacred duty, which encompasses most Muslims should they be commanded to participate by their leaders.

Whether we withdraw from the confrontation or not, we will be attacked. Whether we fight on their lands or not, we will be attacked. These attacks will be of ever increasing ferocity and deadliness as the Muslims acquire the means for mass destruction and delivery. The attacks will evolve into ever more sophisticated forms, including financial, and inflaming of populations worldwide to disperse our military resources. Oil is a weapon of increasing importance.

Terror therefore is now the norm. Increased terror will be perceived as the norm as the years go by, until we find the right set of solutions to the problem. This set of solutions must be a total response to the Jihadists, including: military, social, economic, political, geographic, and psychological warfare, and involving our full resources. The very posing of the question by this thread indicates that the necessity for total worldwide war against Islam is not well-understood—not yet, in any event.

It will take a major attack with loss of life far in excess of 9/11 to bring the sleeping public, and the passive minds we are beset with, properly into the fray.

I've decided to let your comment stand despite the fact it oozes bigotry from every pore. We are certainly not fighting the entire religion of Islam. Making war on a billion people is suicide - unless you plan on employing nukes.

In the future, if you are going to leave a comment here, I suggest you leave the hate and idiocy behind.

Rick Moran

Comment Posted By mannning On 5.07.2007 @ 14:10

Powered by WordPress

« Previous Page

Next page »

Pages (48) : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48

«« Back To Stats Page